Fortnite: Battle Royale (Fortnite), the highest-earning game in 2019 at $1.8 billion, continues to drive the world of esports.1 Epic Games, its development company, provided $100 million in cash winnings for its summer World Cup, the finals for which took place at Arthur Ashe Stadium in July. The Sunday finale of the event was, according to Epic, the most-watched competitive gaming event (excluding China) of all time. 2 Part of the Fortnite game’s success is due to its creative and memorable celebratory dances known as emotes. Many of these emotes, often inspired by real-world examples from movies, TV series, and social media, enjoy a life beyond the game, as celebrities perform them and athletes use them to celebrate goals and victories.

This high level of success and popularity has inevitably also made the game an inviting target for litigation. In the past eighteen months, several cases have been brought against the company regarding some of the game’s most popular emotes. These cases provide insight for gamers and game developers into potential claims they may face and how to appropriately clear rights and avoid claims.

On March 4, 2020, Arnold Schwarzenegger (through his company, Oak Productions, Inc.) filed a lawsuit in a California state court against ASAP Group, LLC (doing business as Promobot). See Oak Prods., Inc. v. ASAP Grp., LLC, No. 20SMCV00347 (Mar. 4, 2020). According to the complaint, Promobot manufactures customizable service robots that can be made to look like real people, and it has “made Schwarzenegger the unwilling ‘face’ of Promobot” by marketing a robot made in the former governor’s likeness[1] without his permission.

Specifically, Schwarzenegger’s complaint lists four causes of action, based on (1) California Civil Code section 3344; (2) common law right of publicity; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) unfair business practices (i.e., likelihood of confusion regarding whether Schwarzenegger has endorsed Promobot). And although the case is still in its infancy, it is worth noting that this is not the first time a celebrity has brought right of publicity claims against the use of a robot that resembles her or him.

The complicated relationship between paparazzi, social media, and celebrities continues in the copyright space. We previously wrote about the cases that had emerged related to Gigi Hadid and Victoria Beckham as well as many other celebrities. Both Hadid and Beckham posted photos taken by paparazzi on their social media accounts and were subsequently sued for copyright infringement. These cases have raised interesting legal arguments at the intersection of copyright enforcement and a celebrity’s right of publicity in their own image, including whether a license could be implied when a celebrity poses for a photograph, or whether that pose creates a co-authorship interest.

Liam Hemsworth is the latest celebrity to make headlines for a related scenario. The photograph at issue in Hemsworth’s case was taken as part of a series of photos depicting him on location for production of a film released earlier this year, Isn’t It Romantic. See ECF No. 1, Splash News and Picture Agency, LLC v. Liam Hemsworth, No. 2:19-cv-10584 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2019). The photo was licensed exclusively to The Daily Mail. On July 15, 2018, the same day that it was posted to The Daily Mail, the photo of Hemsworth also appeared, without its copyright information as produced on The Daily Mail‘s website, on one of Hemsworth’s social media accounts. It also included a “tag” promoting the movie. On June 20, 2019, the photo again appeared on the same social media account, including a feature to encourage viewers to vote for Isn’t It Romantic at the Teen Choice Movie Awards.

Georgia insurance adjuster and consultant Bruce Fredrics’ filed a lawsuit against a reporter relating to a proposed television exposé on Mr. Fredrics and his business. In Frederics v. Hon. Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State, et al., Case No. 2019CV317438 (Aug. 2, 2019), Mr. Fredrics sought effectively to stop Harry Samler, the host of the local news’ station’s pro-consumer investigative show “Better Call Harry,” from publishing any news stories about his dealings with a homeowner who claimed he defrauded her, and who had subsequently turned to Mr. Samler to publicize her alleged negative experience. Notably, Mr. Samler’s investigation dealt not only with Mr. Frederics’ dealings with this homeowner, but also the consumer complaint filed by that homeowner and resulting investigation against Mr. Frederics by a Georgia regulatory agency.

But Mr. Samler’s employer, CBS46, had other plans to protect its lead investigative reporter (and, ostensibly, one of its most popular segments): it filed a motion to intervene and to join a motion to strike filed by Mr. Samler that asked the Georgia Superior Court to make a finding that Mr. Frederics’ lawsuit impermissibly curtailed CBS46’s constitutionally-protected newsgathering activities. Mr. Frederics opposed both motions, first claiming that, because CBS46 was neither a defendant in his actions nor the target of any of his specific claims, it had no right to intervene in the action. The Superior Court promptly disposed of that argument, noting that “[t]he media’s right to intervene in legal actions that seek to impede its ability to gather and report the news is well established.”…Continue Reading News at 11: Georgia court finds that television station has First Amendment right to produce investigative reports